coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 17 August 1998 she lodged an action to determine the validity of the termination of employment[1]. The defendant introduced a counterclaim.
6.  The parties reached an out-of-court settlement and withdrew their claims on 22 May 2006.
7.  As a result, the Bratislava III District Court discontinued the proceedings on 25 May 2006. The decision was served on the applicant on 1 July 2006 and, in the absence of an appeal, it became final on 16 August 2006.
8.  On 31 May 2006 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings.
9.  On 7 July 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It held that the protection of one's right to a hearing without unjustified delay by the Constitutional Court was intended to eliminate the state of legal uncertainty of a party to proceedings. Legal uncertainty could be eliminated either by a final judicial decision or by other means stipulated by the law. The latter also included a procedural decision of a court, based on the plaintiff's wish not to pursue the proceedings as regards the entire claim or where, as in the present case, both parties withdrew their claims. It had been the Constitutional Court's practice to reject complaints filed when the applicants' right to a hearing without unjustified delay was not being violated, even if the relevant decisions had not yet become final.
10.  It finally noted that the applicant had lodged her complaint after the District Court had adopted the decision to discontinue the proceedings following the withdrawal of the parties' claims. As a result, the District Court was no longer dealing with the merits of the case and the complaint of the length of the proceedings was thus manifestly ill-founded.
5.  The applicant, Mr Sabir Jafarov, was born in 1958 and lives in Azerbaijan. He is the sole founder and the director of the applicant company incorporated in Baku. He submitted the present application on his own behalf and on behalf of the applicant company.
6.  By an order of 24 July 2000, issued by the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), the applicant company was provided with a plot of land of 400 square metres situated in Baku with the purpose of construction of an automobile showroom. On 13 April 2002 the applicant company concluded a tenancy agreement with the BCEA concerning a right of use of this plot of land for a period of forty-nine years.
7.  It appears from the case file that after obtaining the relevant construction permit from the competent authorities, the applicant company began to carry out construction work on the land in question. However, in August 2002 the BCEA requested the applicant company to suspend the construction work. By an order of 2 January 2003 the BCEA annulled its order of 24 July 2000 and instructed that all the construction carried out by the applicant company up to that point be destroyed.
8.  On an unspecified date, the applicant company brought an action against the BCEA, asking for annulment of the order of 2 January 2003. The applicant company also claimed compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the destruction of the structures already built on the land plot.
9.  On 10 August 2005 Local Economic Court No. 1 delivered a judgment granting the applicant company's claim in part. The court held that the BCEA's order of 2 January 2003 had been unlawful and that the applicant company's right of use of the plot of land should be restored. Moreover, the court awarded the applicant company 104,822,212 Old Azerbaijani manats (AZM) in compensation for pecuniary damage, leaving the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage unexamined. The judgment was appealed by both parties in the proceedings.
10.  On 12 October 2005 the Economic Court (acting as an appellate instance) delivered a new judgment on the merits. The Economic Court upheld the lower court's judgment in the part concerning the unlawfulness of the BCEA's order of 2 January 2003. However, the Economic Court dismissed the remainder of the applicant company's claims, including the claim in respect of pecuniary damage.
11.  On 23 December 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the Economic Court's judgment, noting that the material and procedural law had been applied correctly.
12.  It appears from the case file that, despite the applicant company's numerous demands and the fact that the writ of execution had been sent several times to BCEA for execution, the applicant company's right of use of the plot of land was not restored.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Kherson.
5.  In 1996-1997 the applicant’s neighbours, Mr and Mrs P., who lived on the second floor of a two-storey dwelling house, reconstructed their two flats. As a result of this, the applicant’s flat on the first floor of the same house and the property in it were flooded and damaged.
6.  On 10 September 1997 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Komsomolskyy Court against Mr and Mrs P., by which she asked it to declare unlawful the reconstructions they had made, sought elimination of obstacles in using the house and claimed damages. Subsequently, the applicant lodged a similar claim against the local authorities, by which she also sought refutation of information published in a local newspaper concerning the applicant’s alleged failure to pay for the utilities and claimed damages in this respect.
7.  Between 9 September 1998 and 24 April 1999 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of the applicant’s criminal complaint concerning the matter, which was eventually dismissed as unsubstantiated.
8.  On 28 August 2001 the court discontinued the proceedings in respect of Mr P. because of his death.
9.  Following two reconsiderations of the case, on 31 August 2005 the court allowed in part the applicant’s claim, declared the reconstructions made by Mrs P. unlawful, obliged her to repair the house and the applicant’s flat and ordered Mrs P. to pay the applicant certain amounts in compensation. The court rejected, as unsubstantiated, the applicant’s claim against the local authorities.
10.  On 12 December 2005 and 24 January 2008, respectively, the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal and the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (the latter court acting as a court of cassation) upheld the above judgment. On 14 April 2008 the applicant was served with a copy of the decision of 24 January 2008.
11.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant amended or specified her claims on six occasions and on one occasion she requested the courts to extend the time-limit for lodging her appeal. Nineteen hearings were adjourned upon the applicant’s request or due to her failure to attend them. Thirty-five hearings were adjourned mainly due to the respondents’ or third parties’ failure to attend them and because of the absence of the judge. Three expert examinations were ordered in the course of the proceedings and lasted for about three months (in June-July 1999 and in May 2004).
12.  The applicant disagreed that she had been responsible for the adjournment of some of the hearings mentioned by the Government.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Budapest.
Proceedings “A”
5.  On 17 August 1994 Mr E.H. brought an action against the applicant before the Pest Central District Court seeking the vacation of a real property. After several hearings, on 30 November 1999 a judgment was delivered. On 10 November 2000 the Budapest Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case.
6.  In the resumed proceedings, hearings were held on 8 January, 28 March, 14 June, 22 October 2002 and 24 January 2003. On 23 May 2003 a judgment was adopted. On 17 September 2004 the Regional Court upheld this decision.
7.  On 31 March 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review in a reasoned decision, holding that the second-instance judgment had not been unlawful to an extent that had a bearing on the merits of the case. This decision was served on 1 June 2005.
Proceedings “B”
8.  On 3 December 1996 the same plaintiff brought an action against the applicant before the District Court, challenging his disinheritance. On 13 and 27 November 1997, 24 March, 2 July and 26 November 1998 hearings were held. On the latter date an interim judgment was adopted. On appeal, the Regional Court held a hearing on 30 September 1999. On 24 February 2000 it partly upheld the interim ruling and partly remitted the case.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, on 31 October 2000 the District Court held a hearing and appointed a graphology expert. He filed his opinion on 10 January 2001. On 27 March, 13 November 2001 and 23 April 2002 hearings took place. Subsequently, the opinions of two more experts were obtained. Further hearings were held on 28 January, 6 May, 30 September 2003, 11 May 2004, 25 January and 19 April 2005, 8 February, 8 March, 10 April, 24 May, 12 July, 11 September and 6 October 2006.
10.  On 13 October 2006 the District Court gave judgment, partly finding for the plaintiff. On 14 June 2007 the Regional Court dismissed the appeals. On 6 November 2007 the Supreme Court refused to deal with the applicant's petition for review, since the value of the dispute was under the statutory threshold.
5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is currently detained in Kassel, Germany.
6.  On 7 December 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of uttering threats and domestic violence. On 8 December 2007 the Żary District Court ordered his detention on remand.
7.  On 22 December 2007 he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital and diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He was discharged from the hospital on 2 January 2008.
8.  On 9 April 2008 the Żary District Court gave a decision and discontinued the proceedings against the applicant. The court found it established that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. However, he could not have been held criminally responsible as he had been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. It further referred to the experts' opinion and ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital.
9.  On the same date the court also refused the applicant's motion for release. The court considered that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant might commit another crime.
10.  On 23 April 2008 the Żary District Court extended the applicant's detention until 22 September 2008. The court referred to the reasons given previously. In addition, it relied on the risk that the applicant might commit yet another offence. It stressed that it was necessary to keep the applicant in detention until his admission to a psychiatric hospital.
11.  The applicant was transferred between different detention centres. After 28 March 2008 he was detained in the Nowa Sól Detention Centre.
12.  On 21 May 2008 the Żary District Court was informed that the applicant had appealed against the decision of 9 April 2008. However he had filed his appeal with the Supreme Court instead of with the Regional Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court asked the lower court to examine whether the applicant's motion could be regarded as an appeal against the decision of 9 April 2008.
13.  On 2 July 2008 the Zielona Góra Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the decision of 9 April 2008. The court held that all the conditions for imposing the preventive measure on the applicant had been met.
14.  On 7 July 2008 the Żary District Court gave a decision and ordered that the applicant be placed in the Lubiąż Psychiatric Hospital. It was also established that the applicant could be admitted to this facility on 8 August 2008. However, the applicant subsequently appealed against this decision in so far as it related to the choice of hospital and the case file was transferred to the Zielona Góra Regional Court. On 29 August 2008 the Zielona Góra Regional Court upheld the decision of 7 July 2008.
15.  The applicant was admitted to the hospital on 15 September 2008.
16.  It appears that he left the hospital on a later unknown date before February 2009.
4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Brwinów.
5.  On 15 June 1994 the applicant filed an application for the distribution of an inheritance left by his grandmother.
6.  On numerous occasions the proceedings were suspended, mostly due to the successive deaths of the parties. The proceedings were:
- suspended on 30 November 1995;
- resumed on an unknown date in 1999;
- suspended on 25 January 2000;
- resumed on an unknown date in 2000 or 2001;
- suspended on 6 June 2001;
- resumed on 25 October 2004;
- suspended on 18 January 2005;
- resumed on 24 April 2006;
- suspended on 5 July 2006;
- resumed on 27 August 2007;
- suspended on 7 December 2007 but immediately resumed;
- suspended on 15 February 2008.
7.  The proceedings are still pending before the court of first instance.
8.  On 10 April 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”). He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings was excessive and compensation.
9.  On 7 May 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. In its assessment of the length of the proceedings, the Regional Court did not take into account the period before the entry into force of the 2004 Act. It then went on to analyse in detail the course of the proceedings, finding that the District Court had conducted them in a correct and timely manner. It further concluded that the long duration of the proceedings had resulted from numerous requests and motions filed by the parties as well as from the successive deaths of the parties. This obliged the District Court to suspend the proceedings each time. The Regional Court finally pointed out that it was incumbent on the parties and not on the court to determine the identity of the heirs of the deceased parties in order for the proceedings to be continued.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 7 November 1997 enforcement proceedings were initiated against the applicant.
6.  On 21 January 1999 the Bratislava IV District Court dismissed the applicant's objections against the enforcement and its costs.
7. On 31 January 2000 the district court dismissed the applicant's request for adjournment of the enforcement. On 30 June 2000 the decision was upheld by the Bratislava Regional Court.
8.  On 29 January 2001 the applicant requested the district court to issue an interim measure and to discontinue the enforcement.
9.  On 21 May 2001 the district court adjourned the enforcement pending its decision on the applicant's request for the enforcement to be discontinued. On 30 November 2001 the regional court quashed the above decision.
10.  On 29 October 2003 the applicant again requested discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings.
11.  On 25 October 2007 the district court rejected the applicant's request for interim measures.
12.  On 17 March 2009 the district court dismissed the applicant's request for discontinuation of the proceedings.
13.  On 28 January 2010 the regional court, on the applicant's appeal, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the district court for further examination.
14.  On 20 May 2010 the district court discontinued the proceedings and held that it would deliver a decision on costs once the decision to discontinue the proceedings became final.
15.  On 24 June 2010 the applicant's representative informed the Court that the decision has not yet become final.
16.  On 6 October 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about length of the proceedings before the Bratislava IV District Court and claimed the equivalent of 2,426 euros (EUR) at that time as just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage suffered.
17.  The Constitutional Court examined the period of the proceedings after 29 January 2001.
18.  On 2 February 2005 it found that the district court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay, ordered the latter to avoid further delays and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
19.  It concluded that these represented a sufficient just satisfaction and did not award the applicant any award for non-pecuniary damage. It referred to the fact that the applicant was the liable party in the proceedings. It further held that the applicant had failed to specify the allegedly suffered harm.
5.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1947 respectively and live in Hódmezővásárhely.
6.  On 26 August 1994 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants, a married couple and both archaeologists. On 5 July 1995 a bill of indictment was preferred and the applicants were charged with several counts of aggravated embezzlement, punishable in the circumstances by up to three years of imprisonment. The alleged offences concerned the alienation of numerous artefacts retrieved by the applicants.
7.  After a remittal, on 21 May 1998 the Békéscsaba District Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to one year of imprisonment, suspended for two years. On 7 January 1999 the Békés County Regional Court upheld this judgment. The review bench of the Supreme Court confirmed the final judgment on 7 March 2000. The courts relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of experts and the testimony of witnesses and the parties and recognised the lapse of time from the commission of the offences as a mitigating factor. After the lapse of the two-year period of suspension on 7 January 2001, the applicants became exempted (mentesülés) from all legal consequences of their conviction.
8.  On 5 September 2001 the applicants nevertheless requested a retrial. On 9 July 2002 the Békés County Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, ordered the retrial.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, after a remittal, the Gyula District Court held two oral hearings and dismissed the applicants' retrial motion on 15 September 2004. The court relied on documentary evidence, the opinions of several newly appointed experts as well as the testimony of witnesses and the defendants. The main question of taking evidence was whether the items embezzled by the applicants – that is, archaeological findings – had commercial value for the purposes of the offence of embezzlement.
10.  The applicants appealed seeking acquittal. The Békés County Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision on 26 January 2005, without holding an oral hearing.
11.  The applicants lodged a petition for review. On 1 June 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as inadmissible, without an examination on the merits, since it was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Prešov.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 23 March 2000 the applicant claimed a sum of money before the Prešov District Court.
7.  On 5 April 2001 the District Court issued a payment order in summary proceedings. As the defendant filed an objection to the order, the court started dealing with the case in ordinary proceedings.
8.  On 10 November 2004 the District Court dismissed the action. On 10 February 2005 it submitted the case to the court of appeal following the applicant's appeal.
9.  On 24 August 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. The case was not complex and the applicant by his conduct had contributed to the length of the proceedings by not responding to a District Court' request and by asking for adjournment of three hearings. The Constitutional Court also concluded that the District Court had failed to proceed with the case in an efficient manner. It held that in view of the very simple legal question to be determined and the value of the claim, the court was obliged to organise its work in a way enabling it to decide the case within one hearing.
10.  The Constitutional Court refused to award the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage since the case had already been decided by the first-instance court and the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings. It ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings (should the case be returned to it) and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
11.  On 14 September 2005 the court of appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in the village of Volodarske, Donetsk Region, Ukraine.
5.  On 24 February 1998 the Novogrod Court ordered the State mine, “Rossiya”, to pay the applicant’s husband 2,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH, about USD 1,000) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused to him as a result of a work-related accident. On 12 March 1998 the court sent the enforcement writ in respect of that judgment to the State Bailiffs’ Service. Later, the applicant and her husband appealed against that judgment under the extraordinary procedure. However, their efforts were unsuccessful.
6.  The applicant’s husband died on 14 January 2003. According to the applicant’s submissions, her daughter received the award under the judgment on an unspecified date in 2003 and then transferred the money to the applicant. In 2006 the applicant lodged several requests with the Bailiffs’ Service and the Novogorod Court requesting information about the enforcement proceedings. However, her efforts were unsuccessful. In their observations, the Government provided no information about the date of the enforcement of the judgment in question either.
7.  In November 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Novogrod Department of the State Pension Fund in the Novogrod Court, seeking recalculation of her pension. On 29 March 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 10 June 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. In July 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation. On 19 October 2006 the Higher Administrative Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
8.  On 10 November 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings against the State Insurance Fund for Work-Related Accidents and Diseases in the Novogrod Court, alleging that her husband had died as a result of a work-related disease. She claimed compensation for the damage caused to her as a result of her husband’s death. On 27 October 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 24 January 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation on 23 February 2005. On 4 May 2007 the Supreme Court sent the applicant’s appeal in cassation to the Kyiv City Court of Appeal for consideration. On 30 October 2007 the latter, acting in its cassation jurisdiction, upheld the decisions of the lower courts.